Only commonly held among the ignorant, and yes, it is just like the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth. At first glance it appears to be true, but deeper investigation reveals it is utter rubbish.
That gets at the difference between hard science and interpretive activities.
Science relies on interpretation of hard facts. This is no different, but for the lawyers penchant to worship "Precedent," thereby placing them in the role of "bad" or even worse "Non" scientists. They do not argue from "First Principles" rather they argue from the fallacy of Authority.
You can overturn a scientific theory through more accurate observation and carefully crafted experiments.
You can overturn a bad misunderstanding of History the same way, but for the obtuseness of people who refuse to accept the evidence presented to them.
But with interpretative activities (you can't really call them "sciences") unless you can bring to light some long-unknown document you don't get the same kind of refutations.
They didn't find a "Document" to discover the Neutron. It was a careful series of observations regarding the behavior of radioactive particles in experiments. By the same token, the behavior of the founders ought to offer another clue as to what their intentions were.
It looks like what you're doing is trying to make one set of wills prevail over another set of wills, and that's not what happened with Copernicus and his scientific revolution.
That is what you ASSERT I am doing, but the reality is more like Galileo v. the Church. Contemporary writings and statements of the founders demonstrate their intent to a reasonable degree of scientific rigor , and that intent is completely incompatible with Split nationality/divided allegiance. That there are those who refuse to comprehend the evidence which demonstrates this, and continuously cite as a substitute for proof, what other dogma spouters in robes have previously proclaimed, is evidence that they have taken on the role of supporters of the Church, Which was Unanimous, Ubiquitous, powerful, and WRONG.
We are constantly asked to believe, without the slightest bit of evidence mind you, that the founders would be okay with the Son of a Non-American (British even) as our Chief Executive Officer. We are constantly told that the Church of the Holy "precedent" proclaims that cases not even related to Article II eligibility somehow have revoked it in its original meaning. Sorry, I'm just not of the body of "Landru."
Like Michael Bay in Pearl Harbor you completely missed the point. Obviously, they didn't find a new "document to discover the neutron. Physics isn't an interpretative activity, so you can conduct experiments and discover the truth. You can't do that in constitutional interpretation. Unless you can find an as yet undiscovered document that decisively proves your hypothesis, you won't have a Copernican revolution in constitutional interpretation.
That's clear enough. Now go ahead and mangle it.
Contemporary writings and statements of the founders demonstrate their intent to a reasonable degree of scientific rigor , and that intent is completely incompatible with Split nationality/divided allegiance.
All of the founders were eligible for British citizenship/subjecthood had they chosen to retain it. They were no strangers to divided loyalties. None of them had been born American citizens. They all knew people of similar backgrounds to their own in whom loyalty to Britain had won out.
Some of their great leaders had been born abroad: John Paul Jones, Lafayette, Pulaski, Kościuszko, Steuben, de Kalb. Not to mention Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, John Witherspoon, James Wilson. Others were the children of those who were born abroad.
It's clear that they didn't want non-citizens or those who weren't citizens from birth to be elected president. It's also clear that they didn't demand that the parents or grandparents of a prospective president be American-born. Did they require that a president's parents be US citizens at the time of the president's birth? I don't think you can maintain that with any degree of certainty.
My point is that there isn't some principle of hostility and mistrust towards those whose parents weren't citizens that comes before the actual words of the Constitution. You can't reduce the Constitution to some principle that you like. You have to go by the actual wording and the understanding of those words, and they don't give you the certainty that you want and believe you have.